State v. Jones
2016 Ohio 7553
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- Early morning traffic stop on April 23, 2014: Trooper Assink stopped a Dodge Magnum for a rear license-plate light out and multiple turn-signal violations. Stop began ~2:47 a.m.
- Driver identified as Brandon T. Jones; he produced a license listing a Cleveland address and said the car belonged to a cousin; he could not find registration or insurance.
- Trooper radioed for a canine unit during the initial encounter and continued writing the citation while the unit was en route; the K-9 arrived within about five minutes of the request.
- Jones was asked to exit the vehicle, was patted down, placed in the trooper’s cruiser, and the dog alerted to the vehicle shortly after arrival; officers then searched the car and discovered controlled substances.
- Jones was indicted on felony drug-possession charges, moved to suppress the evidence as the fruit of an unconstitutional detention and dog sniff, the trial court denied suppression, Jones pleaded no contest to possession of heroin, and appealed the denial of the suppression motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Jones) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the dog sniff/search occurred after completion of the traffic stop, rendering it unconstitutional under Rodriguez | The stop was ongoing and the officer reasonably pursued unrelated checks (canine) without prolonging the stop | The dog sniff occurred after the traffic stop’s mission was complete and thus unlawfully prolonged the seizure (invoking Rodriguez) | Court held the stop was not prolonged: canine was requested during investigation and arrived before citation was completed, so the sniff/search was lawful |
| Whether officer needed reasonable suspicion to request the canine unit | No reasonable-suspicion requirement to call for a canine so long as the stop is not extended | Officer lacked reasonable suspicion to justify expanding the stop to include a dog sniff | Court held under Rodriguez no independent reasonable suspicion was required to call the dog if the stop wasn’t prolonged |
| Whether the officer diligently conducted the traffic-stop tasks (license/registration check, citation) | Officer acted diligently and performed checks while awaiting the canine | Officer unreasonably delayed completion of the stop to await the canine | Court found the officer diligently pursued routine tasks and did not unreasonably extend the stop |
| Whether suppression of evidence discovered after canine alert was warranted | Evidence admissible because the detention and canine sniff were lawful | Evidence should be suppressed as product of unconstitutional seizure | Court denied suppression and affirmed conviction/sentence |
Key Cases Cited
- Rodriguez v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 1609 (2015) (holding a traffic stop may not be prolonged beyond the time needed to handle its mission absent reasonable suspicion)
- Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405 (2005) (dog sniff during a lawful traffic stop does not violate the Fourth Amendment)
- State v. Batchili, 113 Ohio St.3d 403 (2007) (Ohio standards on reasonable duration of traffic stops and diligence in completing investigations)